« Spurgeon on faith’s necessity | Main | Thoughts on the Court Ruling on the Ministers’ Housing Allowance »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

peter lumpkins


What I find at times humorous and at other times a bit irritating is guys like Driscoll who repeatedly and publicly pooh-pooh women, "effeminate" men, "heretics," "Arminians," and practically anyone from any other "tribe" they desire and count it as funny or just normal, but then get defensive when they're asked pointed questions and immediately charge "you're unkind" or "you're rude" or "you're not very Christlike." Rude? Unkind? You mean the Bart Simpson-like bad-boy of evangelicalism has the audacity to charge another--in this case, Janet Mefferd, who, as the audio demonstrates, is far from being either rude or unkind in attitude or tone in asking her questions--with being inappropriate in etiquette and/or demeanor?

Oh brother. Give me a West Georgia break...


Let's get this straight. Driscoll accusing someone of being "rude" or "un-kind". Pot meet kettle.


This one was interesting. Mark even tells her he was helping her out by being on her show. The hubris was overwhelming. But we find out later his publicist called and asked for him to be on. What a phony.

Janet was right. A man's long time work from a book he had published for SALE had only a vague reference to a website and no book page number for 14 pages! What integrity!

Yes, we must actually live out decency and integrity BEFORE we trot out Jesus to hide behind. How ridiculous Mark sounds. Then he hanges up. Total class?

Me thinks Driscolls star is waning and he has been so surrounded by yes men for so long he cannot handle a direct question about his very PUBLIC book he is SELLING.


The Amazon descriptor for Driscoll’s new book:

"The bad news is that many believers just don’t get it. They continue to gather exclusively into insular tribes, lobbing e-bombs at each other in cyberspace."

Well, somebody better keep lobbing them Driscoll's way ... this guy is a mess. He is taking the "church" for a ride.

Regarding his attitude about women, I keep thinking this may very well be the Achilles heel (or one of them) which will eventually bring an end to the “resurgence.” When Christian women trapped in New Calvinism finally figure out that they are deemed far lesser than Biblically specified, you will see them (and their man) bail out of this movement. Matt Chandler, Acts 29 President and leading New Calvinism pastor/influencer within SBC ranks, puts it this way: “I teach to men.” While Chandler and other NC leaders attempt to put their complementarian views into Biblical perspective, it comes across out-of-balance and condescending for those who have ears to hear. If you visit YRR church plants in your area (I have), look closely at the countenance of the women there.

Tim Rogers


What are you doing this for? Mark Driscoll has 70k Twitter followers and according to his position I can copy your material and use it as my own because we are friends. :)

Andrew Barker

Roll on the day, and it has to happen some day, when that age old phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is shown to be wrong! :-)


Andrew - Yep, the "bad publicity" in this case may very well boost book sales for Driscoll. I can hear the busy little fingers of YRR e-scrambling on Amazon to get their copy now. LifeWay needs to put this on their Driscoll shelf soon: http://www.lifeway.com/Keyword/mark+driscoll

While I'm not a Driscoll fan, I found myself actually sympathizing with him some during the go-for-the-jugular interview by Ms. Mefferd. Then I quickly got over that feeling as I reflected on the number this potty-mouth preacher has done on Southern Baptist youth.

peter lumpkins


Well, according to Mark, his followers are 700,000, not 70K. But when we look at his twitter page, it's 437,000. https://twitter.com/PastorMark

While 437K is still an amazing amount of twitter followers, it's not 700k anyway you slice it (nor dumping in the quarter mil FB page "likes" assists since page "likes" do not equal followers). Maybe 300K stop following him when he crashed MacArthur's party! Anyways, now we know where J.D. Hall gets his practice of claiming "thousands" of SB listeners ;^).

Scott Shaver

From Tim:

"What are you doing this for? Mark Driscoll has 70k Twitter followers and according to his position I can copy your material and use it as my own because we are friends. :)"

Is this actually what the validation of an authentic biblical Christian faith has come too ...700K on Twitter?

What in the world does such a logic have to do with whether or not Driscoll is off-base?

I swear if there's ever a widespread failure of the national power grid ....Christianity as promoted by some folks will collapse.

peter lumpkins

Hey Scott. I think Tim was just fooling around :^)

Scott Shaver

My apologies to Tim, I caught a glimpse of the sarcasm but went ahead with the comment as a method of venting.

Sick to death of electronic calvinism. :)

peter lumpkins

No problem, Scott. I know how you feel. Tim's a cowboy misplaced in NC...


Did I hear Driscoll say he was doing Ms. Mefford a favor granting her an interview? How dare her to be so rude to a Twitter King! Not to mention he crawled to the phone with the flu to sell his book on her show (knowing that whether the press be positive or negative, YRR whippersnappers snap his books up anyway).

Oh brother. Give me a West Georgia break...

(Whoops, did I just borrow someone's line without asking?)


Max wrote:

> If you visit YRR church plants in your area (I have), look
> closely at the countenance of the women there.

That's a fact.

When my previous church was in the midst of its stealth takeover, I noted such in the face of the wife of one of the key newcomers/players. I even said to one of our elders, who I later found out was involved, "She looks afraid, makes almost no eye contact, and never smiles...what does he DO to her?" The elder wasn't quite sure if I was joking and had an initial facial expression of a smile; with the truth of my observation dawning on him, the elder's expression and tone quickly turned serious, then dismissive. "She smiles," he insisted, then made a quick exit.

The next week, she was trying to look up, make eye contact, and smile as she came across people, including me. Her eyes didn't match the corners of her mouth, however, and the falseness of all that was being shown to us started to become visible.

I later learned she'd been an outstanding student and on a road to accomplishment until she did what she thought was the right thing for a terrific young Christian woman to do in marrying a seminary student / future preacher. Now, she's been forced out of her career (which was in ministry, by the way) and into the stereotypical mold of a Calvinist-denominational wife, doing little more than serving snacks and drinks to guests her husband wants to impress/best and cooking, cleaning, and raising his spawn. All while now *forcing* smiles lest she reveal how trapped she's become.

Scott Shaffer

If you listen to the raw audio of the interview it appears he didn't hang up.

peter lumpkins

Thanks Scott. It was confirmed via email it was a hangup and not a lost signal, etc.

Scott Shaffer

I'll take your word for it. At the end of the raw audio file he says something like, "I'm still here", and then you hear a producer informing Janet of it. Perhaps he hung up after that. In either event,he was still on the phone when she cut away to the commercial break.


Trapper - You've just described the wives of others I've known and observed within New Calvinism ranks ... young women ensnared, with their own spiritual gifts finding no outlet. It really doesn't take too much spiritual discernment to see this ... just simple observation. So sad.

JD Hall

Here's the uncut audio: ftp://ftp.srnprograms.com/Driscoll/

Janet explains on her FB page that the second voice was Justin, Mark's assistant, on a third line (it seems). It appears that Justin was still on, but Mark hung up on his end.


When Pastor Driscoll refers to the low percentage of "real Christians" in this country, is he inferring that only Evangelicals are "real" Christians. Do most evangelicals believe that?

I am an orthodox Lutheran. Last time I checked the Bible says that the only thing necessary to be saved is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". There are millions of devote orthodox Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Anglicans and other Trinitarian Christians in this country. Add that number with you evangelicals/Southern Baptists (who we orthodox consider to be "real Christians") and "real" Christians still represent a sizable percentage of the US population. We number much more than the small percentage Pastor Driscoll mentions.

I hope Evangelicals are not under the false impression that one must believe all the correct doctrines and pray a version of the Sinner's Prayer to be saved, to be a "real" Christian. The Word of God says that one is saved simply by believing in Jesus Christ as Lord. Your belief of when God saved you is not included in that passage of Scripture, even if you believe that God saved you in infant Baptism. "Do you believe at this MOMENT in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" THAT is what matters. That is what determines whether or not you are a true Christian; not whether you "really believe what the Bible says", which is another way to say, you are saved if "you believe MY evangelical doctrine" as Pastor Driscoll seems to imply.

Ben Simpson

Apparently it was lost on Mrs. Mefferd that she & her staff deceived Mark Driscoll into coming on the show for the purpse of promoting his book but instead unleashed a surprise attack on not only his book but his integrity as a person. If she is of as high integrity as she tried to put on there, then she would have given him a heads up instead ambushing with a gotcha moment.

If Driscoll didn't cite correctly, that certainly needs to be changed immediately, but Mrs. Mefferd should leave the ambushes to secular media personalities. She may be right but was clearly wrong in how she apprached it. But hey, most of you on here are are no fans of Driscoll and are just glad to see him given a hard time. Enjoy!

Ben Simpson

Scott has provided evidence that Driscoll certainly did not hang up although he probably should have long before the end of that segment to get out of Mefferd's inappropriate ambush.

A Christian

Janet and pretty much everyone who has commented on this page has a Pharisaical Spirit. Your all wrong, your idiots, and I pray for anyone who has to put up with your false logic and reasoning.


Driscoll ASKED to be on her show. SHE warned them she was going to ask him tough questions and they said that was fine. HE wanted the publicity. THEY came to HER. Not the other way around. And yet Driscoll says "I'm here doing you a favor"?? Seriously? What an egomaniac.

So, ok apparently he did not at first hang up on Janet but he did sit there for 9 full seconds saying nothing (which is just as petulant).

Here's the end of the interview audio from Driscoll's side

Here's the statement from Mefferd's producer including the link to the raw audio from their side:

From Bobby, the producer in Dallas.
Here is the link to the raw recorded Salem Radio Network audio file of Janet Mefferd's Nov. 21, 2013, interview with Pastor Mark Driscoll, author of "A Call to Resurgence."

It was recorded at 12p ET on Nov 21 as a mono .mp3 file for playback on air at 3p ET. It was not recorded as a multitrack session, so there would have been no way to JUST pull out Driscoll’s voice. Janet was clearly conducting the interview, and upon completion of her thoughts, Mark Driscoll failed to respond for two seconds so Janet closed the segment. No audio came through the board after Janet’s words “in your book.”

It is interesting that even on Driscoll’s own audio recording, he was silent for 9 seconds. The second voice on the Driscoll audio was Justin Dean, Driscoll’s assistant, who patched through the original call.

Did Justin hit the mute button on his end, preventing Janet from hearing Mark for the final seconds of the segment? I do not know. I can only state what occurred on our end.

I specifically left the volume up on the phone line until Janet said, "And we'll be coming back." The phone call then disconnected from Driscoll's end before the segment was completed.

FOR THE RECORD, Janet DID NOT hang up on Pastor Driscoll, nor did WE cut the interview short. We also edited nothing for the final playback.

Janet is a Christian and a journalist. She would never doctor an interview or betray her Christian testimony or journalistic ethics.

Bobby Belt
The Janet Mefferd Show


(just login as 'guest' to download that)


" She may be right but was clearly wrong in how she apprached it. "

And obviously to all of you that's a worse sin (asking a question one too many times when the person doesn't give you a straight answer and deflects, passes the buck, and issues 'fake' "if I did wrong" apologies) than deliberate plagiarism... FOURTEEN PAGES? Come on, people.

Seems we're learning that the blatant misuse of "touch not the Lord's anointed" has crossed over from TBN to the YRR crowd. Sick.


By the way if you want another similar interview, listen to the Unbelievable radio podcast from 1-14-12 and he did the same thing to that guy for asking a respectful simple question. Accused Justin Brierly of attempting to be a shock jock. It was totally wacked and the interview goes downhill from there. This is the one where he accuses British Christians essentially of being pansies and their pastors are "guys in dresses preaching to grandmas" and stands up for his own 'drill sergeant' approach. (At best he reminds me of Herbert Sobel in Band of Brothers.) After this interview they came up with STRICT guidelines on further interviews. Apparently those didn't protect him this time. What a tough guy.

Can't seem to link directly to the podcast so here is where I found it:
look for the 1-14-12 episode:
Pretty eye opening.

And a great analysis can be found here:


I hate that Driscoll claims to be Reformed. He clearly is not.


One tires of the perpetual but misplaced not to mention lame defense when one of the YRR heroes do not fare so well in public perception. He was "bushwhacked" or the brunt end of a misguided journalist more interested in "gotcha" moments than real, substantial questions. And, the questioner becomes the 'bad guy' for bringing up legitimate questions. Please. Dealing with some of these guys is dealing with the biggest whiny butts on God's globe.

With that, I am...


Poor Mark Driscoll, a persecuted soul.

He invaded the Strange Fire conference to be controversial. He was met with grace and he used their graces to claim it was all innocent. Shame on you.

He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar on the radio. Of course nobody likes that. But it just shows you that Mark isn't the superstar you think he is. He's got A LOT of baggage like this. It ain't pretty.


"touch not the Lord's anointed"

Yep, Paula, I've heard that defense of Driscoll from the YRR camp. Many of us who attempt to speak some wisdom into this mess would not offer our input if we discerned that was the case. We've had an outbreak of arrogance, rather than anointing, in the New Calvinism movement which must be addressed. Trying to contend for the faith without being contentious has become a tough balance to hit with these militant and aggressive folks.

Scott Shaver

Just so there's no mistake:

Scott Shaffer and Scott Shaver are two very different people.


Thanks Scott Shaver ... I was beginning to think you were a "moderate" or something worse.


I guess the Baptist and evangelical readers of this blog are more concerned with plagerism and pastoral arrogance than the act of one Christian labeling other Christians as not being "real" Christians.

Very sad.

Andrew Barker

Scott, since JD was good enough to contribute to this debate I think it wise that you've come clean about your identity! After all, it's bad enough that Peter has two nom de plumes ie Lydia and Mary without somebody else getting in on the act! ;)


I'm not speaking for folks who post on this site and they may very well disagree with me. "Some" of my positions as a reformed Baptist are very much frowned upon by most folks on this site, which stands to reason because they are not "reformed".

I don't think I / They are "more concerned with plagiarism and ......than the act of......" Both are worthy topics, the focus here is currently on the plagiarism issue, which doesn't need to lead you into thinking it's "more" important than your point.

I love evangelizing folks, those who attend church and those who don't. My experience, limited as it may be, has left me concluding that the determining factor of who is and isn't of the faith (not that's I'm the judge)is based on more than the simple statement ..."Bible says that the only thing necessary to be saved is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

While, in a sense, salvation is so simple a child can believe, it's important to examine the statement within the culture we live. I would NOT count a person a brother in Christ who simply says they believe that quote, even if very sincerely.

I have a short history in the Mormon church and have Family who are Mormons. As such, while I'm far from an authority, I do have a working knowledge of Mormon teaching. Most Mormons will be happy to testify that they believe the statement I quoted from you and yet they are not of the true faith.

I live in the south where "everyone" is a Christian, unfortunately many are not. Which is why I said I evangelize folks who are both in the church and out.

A Christian

Look if Peter Jones feels he's been plagiarized I'm sure that is something he can take up with Mark. You say this man has "baggage" but you don't seem to understand that everyone but Jesus has baggage lol. This seems like an opportunistic way of trying to slander a mans reputation in some hope of rescuing his fallen followers. You say this man is arrogant(which he may have been in the past) but all I see are arrogant comments coming from people who are preying on the fall of a teacher who's theology you don't agree with. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Mefford "sinned by questioning"
Driscoll modeled "act like men"



My point is that no one on this comment page batted an eye at the astonishing comment by Pastor Driscoll that only 8% of the American people are "real" Christians. Plagerism is a sin. Arrogance is a sin. But denying the label of "real Christian" to millions of non-Baptist, non-evangelical Christians in this country should be condemned as an equally appalling sin.

On the issue of what is necessary to believe in order to be a "real Christian", lets look at Scripture. There is not one single passage of Scripture that states that "You must believe all the right doctrines to be saved". None. Zero. There is no evidence from Scripture that Christ grilled the thief on the cross regarding his doctrinal positions on the Trinity, Justification by Faith, and the "ordinances" of Baptism and the Lord's Supper before granting him salvation with his words, "today you will be with me in Paradise".

In multiple passages of Scripture it is very clear that all that God requires for someone to be a "real Christian" is genuine faith and belief in and on the risen Jesus Christ as Lord.

Like you, I do not believe that the Mormon "Church" is a "real" Christian Church because they deny the core doctrines of the Christian faith, in particular the doctrine of the Trinity. However, if a person identifying as a Mormon tells me that he believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, I do not believe that God gives me the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian. That is God's decision. I would definitely tell him that he is attending a non-Christian church and that he needs to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Justification by Faith.

Evangelicals need to be very careful when they start playing God and denying the "label" Christian to persons professing Christ as their Lord and Savior.

peter lumpkins


Come on. Your point concerning Driscoll's questionable stat not being explored here is hardly well taken. The post wasn't intended to question Driscoll's presentation but Mefferd's confrontation with him and his book. One might as well accept as valid the complaint that no Hip Hop was played at the National Polka Festival as to accept your complaint no one on this page "batted an eye" at Driscoll's questionable eight percent.

With that, I am...


Gary, How about those 700x twitter followers who were told his books had been "confiscated" at Strange Fire".

And his followers read his blovations, explanations, recaps, etc, etc and STILL believe/defend him every time. Must be the machismo. As they say the bolder the more believed, I guess. I cannot figure it out. Oh I remember! They excuses after Joyful Exiles, pornodivinations, sodomy and assorted vulgarites/lies was: He preaches the Gospel. That will guarantee you off the hook if you are a celebrity Christian. Whatever "Gospel" meant to them at the time.

Our dear friend Ben thinks Driscoll was tricked and deceived by Janet Mefford. Evidently she orchestrated a nefarious ambush of "mean" questions concerning his very PUBLIC twittered behavior and responded to his PR people about the book promotion.

What a meanie. Did she not understand how sensative Mark is?


That will probably be the last time I listen to Janet Mefferd. That was a very ungracious ambush.

And no, I am not some kind of a Mark Driscoll fan. I know very little about him.

It looks like showmanship on her part to me.

Boooh. Very lame Janet.

If I were Mark Driscoll, I wouldn't have been nearly as gracious to her.

She was completely out of line in her approach.


Well, I've looked for a comments feed and cannot find one. I was hoping to track this conversation.

Why no comments feed or option to receive notice of follow up comments??



My point is this: If an orthodox Christian pastor or priest, during an interview regarding plagiarism and pastoral arrogance, made a comment inferring that Baptists and evangelicals are not "real" Christians, THAT would be the topic of conversation on an orthodox Christian blog discussing the interview.

No one in "Evangelical-land" batted an eye at Pastor Driscoll's comment relegating 72% of American Christians to eternity in hell.

peter lumpkins


I got your point. But you're ignoring mine; namely, it's completely irrelevant to complain a comment thread does not address what you judge is a more suitable subject toward your desires when the comments fairly well match the issue the post raised in the first place. You now make out like I would feel different if Driscoll had implied "Baptists and evangelicals are not "real" Christians." Well, why would I? My post is not about the accuracy of Driscoll's claims in his presentation. Rather as I've noted and apparently all but you have fairly well gotten, my post only is about Mefferd's questioning Driscoll over his alleged mis-citation and possible plagiarism. To complain here that I and/or others should be more concerned like you are about something else is, in a word, absurd. This thread is what it is.

Michael Smith

Bunch of angry Pharisees, all with a bag of rocks in hand! Put 'em down people. The raw audio shows that he didn't hang up. And really the "plagiarism" charge isn't about NOT footnoting - because he did. So this is all boiled down to "not footnoting ENOUGH!" Seriously! God deliver us from the hyper-legalists!



Really, you are picking a fight where there is none to fight. Driscoll made other statements, other than the low percentage quote, which folks will also disagree with. That's simply not the topic at this time. Cant say it any better than Peter Did.

I will challenge you to Biblically think thru your following comment:
"However, if a person identifying as a Mormon tells me that he believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, I do not believe that God gives me the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian. That is God's decision"

For the benefit of evangelism, A true Christian does have "the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian" when talking about a Mormon.

I'm defining the term "pronouncement" to simply mean Making a "judgment" about the salvation of a person, based on what that person believes.

A Christian also has the authority to pronounce A Muslim, atheist or Buddhist as a non Christian because they deny the fundamentals of the faith. It is impossible for a Mormon, Buddhist or Muslim to have true faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

One growing problem with our "Christian" culture today is the refusal of some preachers and teachers to proclaim the truth when it comes to defining what true salvation is and is not.

For instance when Joel Osteen states that he counts Mitt Romney as a brother in Christ. Romney is a true believe in Mormonism. Osteen says this because Romney will say he has faith and trust is in Christ.


Enough said.

Scott Shaffer

Carl Trueman, who has had much to say about Chrisitian celebrity, weighs in:




I grew up a fundamentalist Baptist until age 18. I was taught that only independent, fundamental, pre-millennial Baptists were "real" Christians. Everyone else is going to hell. I was under the impression that evangelicals do not hold that terrible, narrow-minded belief system. That is why I was shocked to hear Pastor Driscoll's comment and see that no evangelical had denounced it.

I am not interested in defending Mormons. I detest their non-apostolic belief system and their predatory practices of converting Trinitarian Christians.

My concern was the dismissal of the salvation of most non-evangelical, non-Baptist Trinitarian Christians. My purpose was to point out how this attitude of "only we are getting into heaven" still exists in evangelicalism. It is wrong.

I still insist that there is NO passage of Scripture that states that you must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ AND hold all the correct (Baptist) doctrines in order to be a real Christian.

Baptists and evangelicals are so adamant about the Bible being the ONLY authority on Christian doctrine (we orthodox Lutherans, like Martin Luther, believe that the Bible is the SUPREME, FINAL authority on doctrine, not the only authority) but yet there is no Scripture that states that a correct belief system on doctrine is a requirement for salvation. Ask the thief on the cross. Ask the Philippian jailer. Ask the Ethiopian Eunuch. None of these converts were required to memorize the Four Spiritual Laws. They were told to "believe". That's it.

I realize my comments on not exactly "on topic" but this thread seems to have died anyway. If Peter refuses to publish my response to you I will not be offended. He is correct, my comment is not on the principle topic of this thread, and this is his blog.


By the way, an orthodox Lutheran would never refer to a Mormon as a Christian brother. We also doubt his status of being a Christian. However, we do not believe in telling someone who thinks he is a believer in Christ that he is not.

We would preach the Gospel to a Mormon, the same as we would to a Muslim, Jew or Buddhist: Salvation is a free gift of God, by his grace alone, received through faith alone, in Christ alone: Believe. Repent. Be baptized.

The comments to this entry are closed.